Trial reportQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026
The minimal clinically important difference for the patient activation measure in a culturally and linguistically diverse cohort with chronic conditions.
Trial report in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo estimate the Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) in a culturally diverse sample of people with chronic disease.
methodsThis study was embedded in a larger cluster randomised trial exploring chronic disease management interventions in a culturally diverse sample of 254 adults. Patients were consecutively recruited across 16 outpatient clinics in Sydney, Australia and completed a range of outcomes related to the trial, including the Patient Activation Measure at recruitment and 6 months later. For the current study, the MCID for the PAM was estimated using two distribution methods and four anchor-based methods: mean change difference, and from the receiver operating characteristic curve, the Euclidean and Farra methods, and the Youden Index. A modified self-reported global impression of change, aligned to key elements of the PAM, was used as the external criterion and scores were dichotomised into ‘improved’ and ‘not improved.’ Therefore, the results are likely to overestimate the MCID.
results228 participants completed pre- and post-assessments; 51% in the improved group and 49% in the not improved group. Anchor-based methods produced MCIDs between 4 and 7.9, with a value of 4.7 from the preferred Youden method. Distribution-based methods produced MCIDs ranging from 0.26 (standardised effect size) to 5.88 PAM points.
conclusionDifferent methods of calculating the PAM for MCID provided different results. Using the preferred Youden Index method, an MCID of 4.7 PAM points was identified as clinically meaningful in this culturally diverse chronic disease cohort. Wider estimates from other anchor-based methods (4.0 to 7.9) are reported to illustrate methodological variability.
trial registrationStudy data were collected during a two-phase hybrid cluster randomised controlled trial, approved by the South Western Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (2021/ETH12279) and registered prospectively on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12622000697785).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.